Wounded cat tees up court case

Ann-Noreen Norton says her cat Benny was struck, while outside on Norton’s deck, by a golf ball hit from the adjacent Brightwood Golf & Country Club. (TED PRITCHARD / Staff)

Most cats don’t get one day in court.

But a Dartmouth feline named Benny is in line for at least three of them in a case that pits its owner, Ann-Noreen Norton, against Brightwood Golf & Country Club.

“This case was commenced by Ms. Norton on March 9, 2012, seeking damages in the amount of $2,468.48, respecting alleged injury to her cat as a result of golf balls allegedly coming from the defendant golf club,” said a small claims court decision released Thursday.

Norton, who bought her Thistle Street home, adjacent to Brightwood’s No. 2 tee, in the summer of 2010, said Thursday that she and Benny were on a chaise longue on her back deck that fall when he was hit by a golf ball.

“It struck it in the back end and the spine area,” Norton said.

She is suing to cover Benny’s vet bills.

“The cat is a living, sentient being. It has value,” Norton said. “It deserves some recognition, and I just think that if your animal is injured, somebody should look at stepping up to the plate to help with that.”

The 31/2-year-old black and white domestic shorthair is able to move around now.

“He’s going to physically survive,” Norton said. “Initially, I had friends who said you need to put the cat to sleep. … I wanted to do everything I could for him. I felt responsible. I brought him here.”

The ball came in so fast that day Norton didn’t see which tee it came from, she said, noting errant shots are a common problem in her yard.

Norton said Thursday that she would prefer to leave descriptions of the cat’s complex injuries to a veterinarian.

“Her pet has undergone three months of intensive medical care, which has been expensive and upsetting, and the pet will never be the same,” said minutes from the April 5 meeting of Harbour East community council.

The matter “is a safety issue that should be taken seriously by Brightwood as a business,” Norton told the council.

She stressed “that Halifax Regional Municipality should take responsibility to find a resolution for the issue,” the council minutes said. “She suggested that Brightwood should put up sufficient nets to keep the golf balls from her and her neighbours’ yards.

“Ms. Norton indicated that she has researched requirements in other cities, and HRM needs to do something about this situation. She suggested that just because it has always been like this is not an acceptable reason to let it continue.”

Since the cat was injured, the golf course has increased the height of the wire mesh fence to six metres from 41/2 metres, Jean McKenna, Brightwood’s lawyer, said Thursday.

“It’s a pretty unusual circumstance because her yard is just to the right of the No. 2 tee,” McKenna said.

“So a drive off the No. 2 tee would go parallel to her fence, all things considered and the golf gods watching. So we say it would be pretty strange for a slice to go into a yard that’s only (nine metres) away over a high fence. And there are some trees there as well. So we’re saying we’re not responsible.”

Brightwood is arguing the course, which marks its 100th anniversary in 2014, has behaved reasonably.

But Norton “is saying we are at fault and it essentially rains golf balls on a daily basis,” said McKenna, an avid golfer.

“We part company on cause of injury to the cat, if indeed there is an injury to the cat, and we part company on what costs could she associate with the golf balls.”

The legal battle “is not so much over the cost, although that certainly is a big part of it, obviously,” she said.

“The larger issue is, is there a very frequent invasion of golf balls into her yard from the Brightwood golf course? In which case, it could be considered to constitute a nuisance, and so there could be liability.”

The case first landed in front of adjudicator Eric Slone in April. But it was adjourned to June when it became evident that more time was required to hear the facts.

On June 5, Slone heard from several witnesses when Brightwood’s lawyer asked the adjudicator to rule that the cat’s owner could not prove her case.

“The basic thrust of her objection was that there was no expert evidence properly before the court to establish a connection between the alleged incident involving a golf ball striking (Norton’s) cat, and the injuries said to have been suffered by the cat as laid out in the veterinary records,” said the decision.

“There ensued a discussion wherein it was explained to (Norton), who was self-represented, that the court could not rely on statements in the veterinary records without giving (Brightwood) an opportunity to cross-examine the author of those comments. Because of the lateness of the hour, and my desire not to see the case dismissed on something of a technicality, or perhaps more accurately in fulfilment of my obligation to assist self-represented parties, I allowed the matter to be adjourned to a future day when (Norton) could call evidence from one or more veterinarian.”

Since then, and after “a great deal of email correspondence,” Slone declared a mistrial on the grounds that he is potentially biased and ordered another adjudicator to try the cat owner’s case.

The alleged bias stemmed from another case where Norton, a retired teacher, sued a store that sold her a defective washing machine. Coincidentally, Slone was also the adjudicator in that case, where he found Norton was “totally credible,” a finding Brightwood argued would render him unable to make a fair finding of credibility in the cat case.

While he didn’t accept that proposition, Norton said the case could be appealed on that basis, so he sent it to another adjudicator.

No date has been set for the new hearing.

The area’s councillor said Thursday she had heard from Brightwood’s manager that the cat got hit.

“When you move by a golf course, there’s a chance you’ll get a golf ball,” said Coun. Gloria McCluskey (Dartmouth Centre).